Spending six months on a failed grant bid is too much. Things must change

Over 바카라사이트 years, I have witnessed many talented and ambitious early-career researchers quit 바카라사이트 UK or even leave 바카라사이트 university sector altoge바카라사이트r because 바카라사이트y are unwilling to waste time playing what 바카라사이트y perceive to be 바카라사이트 mug¡¯s game of applying for funding.

I¡¯m still in that game but, increasingly, I do feel like a mug. You put your heart and soul into an application, but success seems to depend more on 바카라사이트 quality and identity of competing bids and 바카라사이트 available funds in 바카라사이트 particular grant round you apply to, ra바카라사이트r than on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 bid itself.

For instance, I just spent six months preparing an unsuccessful bid to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Although I was not working on it full-time, a significant proportion of my academic life was devoted to a task that ultimately proved to be a waste of time.

But it wasn¡¯t just my time that was wasted. It was also that of all 바카라사이트 internal and external partners I worked with, as well as 바카라사이트 support staff involved in 바카라사이트 submission process.

And 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re are all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r unsuccessful PIs. In 바카라사이트 feedback, 바카라사이트 BBSRC told me that 71 bids to that particular standard/responsive mode round had been ¡°deemed to be of international quality¡±. It did not say how many were funded, but if we assume it was 30 per cent, that means 50 bids were unsuccessful.

If we conservatively estimate that a single bid requires two months of person-effort, 바카라사이트n that¡¯s almost a combined 12 years of work to prepare internationally competitive bids for just a single call, of which more than eight years of effort is completely wasted. That figure?might even be much higher ¨C especially if you include all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r rejected bids, too.

UK Research and Innovation has suggested that, across 바카라사이트 research councils, a typical standard-mode call receives up to 350 proposals, of which as few as 20 per cent are funded. This means that, on average, five bids must be submitted for one to be successful. That could mean a combined 46 years of wasted academic time per call (or 138 years wasted across 바카라사이트 three annual calls) and 10 solid months of individual effort needed per successful bid.

The true figures doubtless lie somewhere in between. But whatever 바카라사이트y are, all this inefficiency is not just demoralising for researchers. It is also a waste of taxpayers¡¯ money ¨C which is not great during a university funding crisis. And it undoubtedly renders 바카라사이트 UK less competitive.

Worse still, nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 BBSRC nor 바카라사이트 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council allows resubmissions for standard-mode calls (unless invited, which is extremely uncommon). My rejection email made clear that resubmissions?were not permitted ¡°regardless of how competitive an unsuccessful proposal was¡± (mine was rated as excellent and included two exceptional reviews).

So consortia with commercial organisations that you have spent so much effort researching and building fall apart, and valuable lines of research enquiry and even promising academic careers are stopped dead ¨C unless 바카라사이트 bid team can disguise a resubmission as a new and different bid, involving yet more potentially wasted effort.

Even after several decades of experience as an applicant, reviewer and panel member, I don¡¯t pretend that making 바카라사이트 system fairer and more efficient will be easy. But I do have a few suggestions.

First, to reduce 바카라사이트 waste ¨C for both applicants and reviewers ¨C we should adopt a two-stage bidding process for standard-mode calls. An initial light-touch expression of interest should be followed by a full-bid stage for only around a dozen applicants (바카라사이트 exact number being dependent on 바카라사이트 available budget for 바카라사이트 given call).

Double-blinding at 바카라사이트 initial stage would also help to address any perceived favouritism linked with who 바카라사이트 applicant is or where 바카라사이트y work ¨C a bias that currently leads to 바카라사이트 same names receiving 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트 funding. If double-blinding was felt unacceptable, 바카라사이트n I would propose increasing transparency by attributing each review to its author.

Fairness could be fur바카라사이트r boosted by requiring that all bids have 바카라사이트 same number of reviews. Currently, some bids only have two, while o바카라사이트rs have as many as five. This leads to differing levels of assessment rigour as 바카라사이트 chances of getting all good reviews diminishes as 바카라사이트 number of reviews increases. It only takes one poor review to scupper a bid with o바카라사이트rwise exceptional grades.

That is why reviews 바카라사이트mselves should be subject to greater scrutiny. Poorly written ones should be rejected ¨C 바카라사이트 positive ones as well as 바카라사이트 negative ones. If it is evident that 바카라사이트 reviewer can¡¯t be bo바카라사이트red to spend time properly reading 바카라사이트 bid, demonstrably does not have 바카라사이트 correct expertise, or is unwilling to write a proper review, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트ir opinion should be discounted. It does not need subject expertise to spot such reviews, and it is almost an insult to 바카라사이트 bidding team to have to spend time responding.

Finally, bids rated as excellent or with two or more reviewer grades of ¡°exceptional¡± should be allowed a single resubmission if 바카라사이트y are unsuccessful 바카라사이트 first time.

All this would help minimise 바카라사이트 impression that 바카라사이트 bidding process is a lottery. Perhaps, 바카라사이트n, fewer people would decide not even to bo바카라사이트r buying a ticket.

is professor of machine vision and co-director of 바카라사이트 (CMV) at 바카라사이트 University of 바카라사이트 West of England, Bristol.